Phone Call to the MHRA....

[deewal]

Many years ago I wa a taxi driver and had the unpleasant job at 3 am one morning of driving a young girl to hospital; she was unconscious but apparently having fits or some kind of seizures. The unmistakable smell on her told me she had been using 'Poppers', a 'recreational' drug that has been popular in the UK since the 1970s and which has somehow avoided being regulated. Amyl Nitrate is what she had been 'enjoying' and it caused a heart seizure followed by fits. The doctors managed to save her but she needed a lot of rehabilitation both physically and mentally and never fully recovered. She was 17 years old.

So, do we ask that all Nicotine liquids be given this same immunity from the law as Poppers? That is what option 3 would mean, no regulation. CHIP only means that the labeling and packaging have to be specific and child resistant, there is no requirement for testing and that is why it will be regulated whether we like it or not and regardless of protest. Without regulation, anyone can mix up a liquid in their kitchen/bathtub/wherever and sell it. What if they made a mistake with their sums and put too much Nicotine in it? Who would be responsible, legally and morally? Regulation would insist all liquids on sale are safe and a banning order on unregulated imports is not hard to imagine.

Regulation doesn't necessarily mean price increases if companies are commited with a passion to what they believe in. Regulation is scaring some people because they are riding the gravy train and not putting anything back into the system; we are investing huge amounts and yes it is a gamble, just like crossing a busy road.
Cheers.
John.

As Frank Carson would say "It's the way you tell 'em."

 

[BrianOConnell]

Many years ago I wa a taxi driver and had the unpleasant job at 3 am one morning of driving a young girl to hospital; she was unconscious but apparently having fits or some kind of seizures. The unmistakable smell on her told me she had been using 'Poppers', a 'recreational' drug that has been popular in the UK since the 1970s and which has somehow avoided being regulated. Amyl Nitrate is what she had been 'enjoying' and it caused a heart seizure followed by fits. The doctors managed to save her but she needed a lot of rehabilitation both physically and mentally and never fully recovered. She was 17 years old.

I took drugs once and I had a great time. There is such a thing as personal responsibility. I don't know if "poppers" were/are age restricted but if someone underage has a product that is restricted to over 18 year olds then who is to blame? The guy who invented the stuff, the parents or the person who sold it to them? Really we don't need to roll out stories that suit our purposes on this or issues like it.

So, do we ask that all Nicotine liquids be given this same immunity from the law as Poppers? That is what option 3 would mean, no regulation.

I ask that they only be sold to adults. I ask that they be marked as toxic with a child-proof seal. All of this is currently required. So how unregulated is that exactly?

CHIP only means that the labeling and packaging have to be specific and child resistant, there is no requirement for testing and that is why it will be regulated whether we like it or not and regardless of protest. Without regulation, anyone can mix up a liquid in their kitchen/bathtub/wherever and sell it. What if they made a mistake with their sums and put too much Nicotine in it? Who would be responsible, legally and morally? Regulation would insist all liquids on sale are safe and a banning order on unregulated imports is not hard to imagine

I think we all want regulation just not as a medicine. It's important to fight for the right thing at the right time. This is the wrong thing. By all means fight for proper regulation under the proper classification. Not as a medicine. It's very disappointing to see a vendor take this route. I absolutely want Vendors to be held accountable for their products but not to have their products mis-classified so as to restrict my choices for recreational use of nicotine.

 

[Rusty]

I think we all want regulation just not as a medicine. It's important to fight for the right thing at the right time. This is the wrong thing. By all means fight for proper regulation under the proper classification. Not as a medicine. It's very disappointing to see a vendor take this route. I absolutely want Vendors to be held accountable for their products but not to have their products mis-classified so as to restrict my choices for recreational use of nicotine.

My thoughts as well Brian

 

[Shining Wit]

As Frank Carson would say "It's the way you tell 'em."

Your reply speaks volumes about your attitude and mentality.
If you wish to continue then use our forum as I find it totally disrespectful
to Tim to lower the debate to such a level.
I apologise Tim and will not post any further on your forum as it obviously provokes those who are unable to answer with anything other than ignorance.
John.

 

[smokindeuce]

Sorry guys - I have been away recently so just catching up on the goings on around here.

John - no problem post a way - its good to discuss this through and its an excellent way of putting some arguments across.

Right, now onto some debate....

John your story re: poppers is not a very good comparison in my opinion..... certainly a bit extreme and overdramatic.

Nicotine is nicotine is nicotine It is a clinically trialled substance used in NRT's that on it's own has very little adverse health consequences.

Both nicotine and propylene glycol vapours have been tested separately in many studies.... Propylene glycol is used in some medically licensed products, as is nicotine.

Therefore, 98% of the mixture in the liquids we are currently using has had some benefit of studies - so not all speculation by any means and certainly not to be likened with an unknown quantity.

If we're going to go down the comparisons route, snus would have been a far closer match to the plight that is facing the ecig now.

Snus is proven 90% safer than smoking cigarettes. BUT for all its benefits, it has been banned in every country in the EU bar Sweden. This is CRAZY and even the Royal College of Physicians states:

[FONT="]‘In view of the low hazard associated with low-toxin oral products such as snus, and evidence of the potential of these products as smoking substitutes, [U]their prohibition in the context of free availability of other smokeless and smoked tobacco products is[B] irrational[/B].[/U]’ (Royal College of Physicians, 2007)[/FONT]

The RCP also states:

[FONT="]‘The regulations imposed on these products in the UK and most EU countries are entirely inconsistent, both within the range of smokeless tobacco products (since the least hazardous are the most regulated) and also in relation to medicinal or smoked nicotine.’[/FONT]

Snus is a no brainer..... as is the ecig - the MHRA/govenrment want to have their cake and eat it. We do not feel that ecigs need to be labelled a medical device and thus we do not need the MHRA interfering, so option 3 is the only way.

With regards Joe Bloggs mixing up liquids in his back yard, well all Trading Standards need do is to carry out their job properly.

It would be very easy for them to request all new suppliers have to register with them first before trading, TS ensure packaging is all to CHIP standard, suppliers provide a clean laboratory test on the liquids and Trading Standards performs the odd spot check to keep everyone on their toes. The supplier gets a nice 'TS approved for purity' badge which users know to look out for and bobs your uncle.

But of course this would just be TOO simple.....

The other thing to consider here is if ejuice gets banned bar a couple of companies who muster up some kind of limited product license, users will just go and get cheaper better variety unregulated liquids from overseas. So as I've mentioned before, all it would achieve is banning the UK suppliers who have been working to make the liquid credible so that people will be left with little choice but to get their liquids from overseas.....unregulated. Doesn't make sense.....

Personally I think there should be two options regarding regulations for the ecig. If anyone wants to get their product medically approved then fair play and good luck in what could be a very expensive, time consuming exercise. There is no reason why there can't also be a second set of regulations for ecigs as an alternative to smoking where suppliers/manufacturers make no cessation claims:

In support of innovative products like the electronic cigarette, the Royal College of Physicians also state: ‘The anomalies that inhibit new product development, in particular rapid delivery, user-friendly medicinal products and more widespread
use of existing low-hazard products, need to be removed.’ (Royal College of Physicians, 2007)

 

[mskitty]

I pushed for 3 and left a pleading comment.

 

[tribalmasters]

I am very happy I got snuff!! Is that illegal here?

 

[smokindeuce]

I pushed for 3 and left a pleading comment.

Good work Kitty great to have more support on this - we'll need all the support we can get!

I am very happy I got snuff!! Is that illegal here?

Nasal snuff is totally legal in UK and has been for yonks....Swedish Snus is however illegal to sell in the UK (and EU), but you can still order direct from Sweden and get stuff through customs in small packages no problem.